A worrying obsession with small details

23 Oct 2014 | Richard Kemmish


Growing up in Birmingham in the 1980s my education involved learning a lot of things that are important in a career making cars (and nothing about financial markets). But just as you never forget the firing sequence of a straight-6 cylinder block (1-5-3-6-2-4, since you ask) you never lose that obsessive interest in the minutiae that make machines work.
 
Which could explain my unhealthy obsession with a detail of covered bond structuring that makes normal people (defined, for these purposes, as non-Brummies) suddenly want to change the subject: the Asset Cover Test.  

The ACT, was invented in 2003 by Allen and Overy and by my estimate is now embedded in 45% of covered bond programmes. People’s reluctance to engage with the details is understandable, it’s description typically stretches to about five pages of gratuitously complicated legal drafting.

What it does in a nut shell is to determine the number of assets you need in the cover pool. It says that the collateralisation should take into account both the quality of the assets and a cushion for potential structural problems, both of which are re-calculated every time you run the test. The alternatives are to rely on a hard-coded value in the covered bond law or covenant, this is obviously a blunt tool. Or to leave the amount of collateral up to the regulator’s discretion – as the latest iteration of the Pfandbrief law does. This probably works as well as the ACT in those countries where the regulator can be trusted to protect covered bond holders, but...

Part of the ACT’s (unnecessary) complexity is that it runs both the ‘how much do you need?’ test and a separate ‘LTV cap’ test to replicate those caps used in ‘traditional’ covered bond jurisdictions. Strictly speaking if the ‘how much do you need?’ test works, the LTV caps are redundant from a credit perspective, they are only in there to make the bonds imitate traditional covered bonds and therefore conform to EU law. 

If you don’t have the time to understand the whole ACT, then understand the calculation of just one term of it: the Asset Percentage. Adjustments, modifications and floors aside, the AP is the overcollateralization ratio that you need (or at least the reciprocal of the ratio) and typically refers to the value that the rating agencies have calculated as being the minimum to achieve the then highest achievable rating under their methodologies.

To over-simplify, the AP is a commitment on the part of the issuer to do – like Mario - whatever it takes to maintain the rating. That’s why it is so powerful.

But here is the problem, the spread of the ACT is now so prevalent that investors expect to see it. There is a risk that the concept gets diluted and ‘asset percentage’ used to refer to either fixed values (X%) or numbers that aren’t defined as strongly as ‘whatever it takes’.

EBA, by all means standardise pool reporting or asset definitions but please, please set a common understanding of what an ACT is, it’s the single most important component in the covered bond credit engine.


Go back to the Blog Homepage

Contact the author at covblog@euromoneyplc.com

Any views or opinions expressed in this blog are those of the writer, Richard Kemmish, and not those of Euromoney Conferences. The opinions expressed are done so in the spirit of stimulating open debate. This blog does not constitute investment advice. Links, sources and information published are subject to change and may not be accurate or valid over time. All comments, presentations and questions on this blog are the sole responsibility of the individual who makes them. Individuals are strongly advised to familiarise themselves with their own corporate, regulatory and institutional guidelines.